5 ms·

Why? I much prefer chess.com to lichess. For one the UI and game modes are vastly superior!

by exdsq 4y ago

shric 4y ago
Each to their own. I find lichess.org's UI and UX vastly superior. And I'm not the GP, but I agree. To expand my thoughts: - The free version is vastly inferior to lichess.org, and it nags you to upgrade at every opportunity. - They are anti-competitive to the point of censoring the mention of lichess on their forums (for e.g. feature requests) [1] - I guess it's subjective how paid chess.com compares to lichess.org but I much prefer lichess. - Minor UX/UI annoyances (you can't give your opponent time or allow takeback requests in a rated game, etc.) - The price of diamond membership is quite steep for a chess website, but I guess compared to lichess.org anything is quite steep. Thinking about it further, I guess chess.com seems extra bad because of the existence of lichess.org which is just amazing (100% open source including the apps, zero ads, open API, can download the database of all games, etc.) Full disclosure, I'm a diamond chess.com member (signed up in January for a year) because I'm quite a chess enthusiast and really wanted to see if it was worth it. It's not, in my opinion. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/qudyuq/why_streams_who_play_on_chesscom_are_not_allowed/ https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/qudyuq/why_streams_w...
- injinj 4y ago
  FWIW, I'm happy to sponsor both, they innovate in different ways. Chess.com with their content sponsorship and deep player pools, lichess with ad-free, open source and unique UI features.
  - farias0 4y ago
    Yeah, I strongly dislike chess.com, but the fact that it sponsors so many amazing chess content creators makes it more useful existing than not existing. Too bad most players gravitate towards it over the superior platform (lichess).
    - shric 4y ago
      Yeah, in an ideal world lichess would get so many donations they'd buy chess.com, make it free, and sponsor the same content creators :)
    - somenameforme 4y ago
      It's not just content creators. They're involved in events, marketing, and all other sorts of stuff that's dramatically increased the reach of chess. You really can't overstate how much they've done for chess. I've played online since back in the days of ICC which was a defacto monopoly given how much larger than it was than all other sites. You can see their records here [1]. Their record for the max number of players logged in was 7,352. Chess.com at a really random time right now has 183,538 people playing. It wasn't long ago that all of the big tournaments were gradually dying off - even Linares died, for lack of funding. And then the rise of chess.com (along with Magnus - who is an absolutely amazing world champ in terms not only of play but also 'ambassadorship for the game') just sent the game in an entirely different trajectory that nobody would have imagined just 10 or 15 years ago. [1] - https://www.chessclub.com/help/records https://www.chessclub.com/help/records
      - robertlagrant 4y ago
        > You really can't overstate how much they've done for chess. Yes, it's great that this game is finally getting popular. About time an up and comer took the crown away from Settlers.
        exdsq 4y ago
        It’s become somewhat cool and modern again with chess.com. It’s hard to ignore that. I quit playing competitively around when I turned 14 because it was so unpopular/geeky for someone that age, but with chess.com pushing marketing and streaming so successfully it seems much more likely a teen will carry on playing.
        robertlagrant 4y ago
- jokethrowaway 4y ago
  Interesting! UI and app are way better on chess.com in my opinion. Game analysis is heaps better on chess.com (UI wise, content wise they're equal). The money nagging is annoying, especially considering they're charging for basically just stockfish wasm running on your machine. I stopped using chess.com because I found it way more addicting compared to lichess and I was way too invested in my chess.com rating.
password54321 4y ago
Here is Magnus Carlsen describing chess.com which sums up how a lot of us feel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brrFMwNVWFA&lc=UgzmCWEI-gfzvZuZmVN4AaABAg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brrFMwNVWFA&lc=UgzmCWEI-gfzv...
- maxmcd 4y ago
  lichess.com does have a snappier feel. Using the chrome performance tools it seems that lichess takes about 2ms to go from mouse click to the piece selection repaint and lichess takes 12ms. (screenshots of traces: https://imgur.com/a/iUkGm8F https://imgur.com/a/iUkGm8F) Lichess also uses zero-time premoves and chess.com uses .1 second premoves. I think these also contribute to lichess feeling snappier.
  - exdsq 4y ago
    > Lichess also uses zero-time premoves and chess.com uses .1 second premoves. I think these also contribute to lichess feeling snappier. Having played competitively, zero-time premoves make no sense and they should cost.
    - shric 4y ago
      Andrew Tang would probably disagree
      - exdsq 4y ago
        Probably and I was nowhere near that level, I just played for my county and tried for my country as a kid, but it changes blitz massively and should be it’s own game. It’s not a thing you can do IRL, so unsure why it should be a thing in the online representation of that.
      - somenameforme 4y ago
        For the past couple of months he's been exclusively on chess.com, with the exception of exactly 1 15 second game he played on Lichess, so I think his position might also be a bit more nuanced! Lichess is great if enjoy the flagging meta, and not so great if you don't. It's made even more extreme by their interpretation of sufficient mating material. A single knight is generally counted as sufficient mating material so you end up scenarios where you're forced to play N v N along with 0 second premoves and that's not something I much enjoy. I understand some folks like this sort of stuff, which is why it's great that there are multiple sites competing instead of a single site monopoly.

Why? I much prefer chess.com to lichess. For one the UI and game modes are vastly superior!

by exdsq 4y ago

Why? I much prefer chess.com to lichess. For one the UI and game modes are vastly superior!

Each to their own. I find lichess.org's UI and UX vastly superior. And I'm not the GP, but I agree. To expand my thoughts: - The free version is vastly inferior to lichess.org, and it nags you to upgrade at every opportunity. - They are anti-competitive to the point of censoring the mention of lichess on their forums (for e.g. feature requests) [1] - I guess it's subjective how paid chess.com compares to lichess.org but I much prefer lichess. - Minor UX/UI annoyances (you can't give your opponent time or allow takeback requests in a rated game, etc.) - The price of diamond membership is quite steep for a chess website, but I guess compared to lichess.org anything is quite steep. Thinking about it further, I guess chess.com seems extra bad because of the existence of lichess.org which is just amazing (100% open source including the apps, zero ads, open API, can download the database of all games, etc.) Full disclosure, I'm a diamond chess.com member (signed up in January for a year) because I'm quite a chess enthusiast and really wanted to see if it was worth it. It's not, in my opinion. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/qudyuq/why_streams_who_play_on_chesscom_are_not_allowed/ https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/qudyuq/why_streams_w...

injinj 4y ago
FWIW, I'm happy to sponsor both, they innovate in different ways. Chess.com with their content sponsorship and deep player pools, lichess with ad-free, open source and unique UI features.
- farias0 4y ago
  Yeah, I strongly dislike chess.com, but the fact that it sponsors so many amazing chess content creators makes it more useful existing than not existing. Too bad most players gravitate towards it over the superior platform (lichess).
  - shric 4y ago
    Yeah, in an ideal world lichess would get so many donations they'd buy chess.com, make it free, and sponsor the same content creators :)
  - somenameforme 4y ago
    It's not just content creators. They're involved in events, marketing, and all other sorts of stuff that's dramatically increased the reach of chess. You really can't overstate how much they've done for chess. I've played online since back in the days of ICC which was a defacto monopoly given how much larger than it was than all other sites. You can see their records here [1]. Their record for the max number of players logged in was 7,352. Chess.com at a really random time right now has 183,538 people playing. It wasn't long ago that all of the big tournaments were gradually dying off - even Linares died, for lack of funding. And then the rise of chess.com (along with Magnus - who is an absolutely amazing world champ in terms not only of play but also 'ambassadorship for the game') just sent the game in an entirely different trajectory that nobody would have imagined just 10 or 15 years ago. [1] - https://www.chessclub.com/help/records https://www.chessclub.com/help/records
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      > You really can't overstate how much they've done for chess. Yes, it's great that this game is finally getting popular. About time an up and comer took the crown away from Settlers.
      - exdsq 4y ago
        It’s become somewhat cool and modern again with chess.com. It’s hard to ignore that. I quit playing competitively around when I turned 14 because it was so unpopular/geeky for someone that age, but with chess.com pushing marketing and streaming so successfully it seems much more likely a teen will carry on playing.
        robertlagrant 4y ago
jokethrowaway 4y ago
Interesting! UI and app are way better on chess.com in my opinion. Game analysis is heaps better on chess.com (UI wise, content wise they're equal). The money nagging is annoying, especially considering they're charging for basically just stockfish wasm running on your machine. I stopped using chess.com because I found it way more addicting compared to lichess and I was way too invested in my chess.com rating.

password54321 4y ago

Here is Magnus Carlsen describing chess.com which sums up how a lot of us feel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brrFMwNVWFA&lc=UgzmCWEI-gfzvZuZmVN4AaABAg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brrFMwNVWFA&lc=UgzmCWEI-gfzv...

maxmcd 4y ago
lichess.com does have a snappier feel. Using the chrome performance tools it seems that lichess takes about 2ms to go from mouse click to the piece selection repaint and lichess takes 12ms. (screenshots of traces: https://imgur.com/a/iUkGm8F https://imgur.com/a/iUkGm8F) Lichess also uses zero-time premoves and chess.com uses .1 second premoves. I think these also contribute to lichess feeling snappier.
- exdsq 4y ago
  > Lichess also uses zero-time premoves and chess.com uses .1 second premoves. I think these also contribute to lichess feeling snappier. Having played competitively, zero-time premoves make no sense and they should cost.
  - shric 4y ago
    Andrew Tang would probably disagree
    - exdsq 4y ago
      Probably and I was nowhere near that level, I just played for my county and tried for my country as a kid, but it changes blitz massively and should be it’s own game. It’s not a thing you can do IRL, so unsure why it should be a thing in the online representation of that.
    - somenameforme 4y ago
      For the past couple of months he's been exclusively on chess.com, with the exception of exactly 1 15 second game he played on Lichess, so I think his position might also be a bit more nuanced! Lichess is great if enjoy the flagging meta, and not so great if you don't. It's made even more extreme by their interpretation of sufficient mating material. A single knight is generally counted as sufficient mating material so you end up scenarios where you're forced to play N v N along with 0 second premoves and that's not something I much enjoy. I understand some folks like this sort of stuff, which is why it's great that there are multiple sites competing instead of a single site monopoly.